New construction - How to build economically sensibly?

And turnkey for you now also includes painter etc? I just see: You are not finished yet, but still roofing ...

Although SH is also very conveniently located like Nds, I still see no basis for discussion about what is economically sensible. The choice is very limited in the low-cost budget.

Best regards, Yvonne

Showing off is more the rule than admitting that you can also drive cheaply.

I feel rather uncomfortable paying supposedly too much... You just can't easily compare the service you bought, unfortunately.

Regarding the question: I would build according to the Energy Saving Ordinance and invest as much as possible in insulation beyond that. For the interior finishing, I would focus on durability (parquet, tiles, ...). It may be more expensive, but with reasonable care, it can last a lifetime.

Simply leave out gimmicks (for example: LED strips on the stairs, oh, there was an interesting thread here recently).

And very important: Do not build bigger than necessary! 120 to 140 m² instead of 160 to 180 m²; one bathroom instead of two, etc. (as a rough guideline for 4 people).

If I remember correctly, this topic has already been discussed here...

And turnkey now also includes painter etc with you?

I think that would be move-in ready So no: painter and floors in living & bedrooms are not included.. However, since it was about the house price without additional construction costs and I wrote "<": Yes, painters and floors would also be included in the <200000 even if this does not come from the general contractor.

I think, if the budget is so tight, the question does not arise whether you pay for something somewhere that would not be necessary. With the 200T you can be glad if you meet the minimum standard.

I think when the budget is so tight, the question isn’t whether you’re paying for something unnecessary somewhere. With the 200K you can be glad if you meet the minimum standard.

That’s what I think too!

Turnkey or ready for occupancy can mean anything the builder comes up with.

And I have to correct my previous post: of course, I built without soundproof tiles on the roof.. it was just too expensive.

People, what do we know. He says he lives in SH. That can be Norderstedt or Wedel, then it gets expensive. Or also Süderstapel, then it gets very cheap and they throw him the fully developed land for 40/sqm. He says he wants to spend around 200k. For the house. Without additional costs, without land, without connections and garden landscaping, etc. so classically turnkey. Everyone here in SH sells it all with a base slab without painting and wallpapering, without a fitted kitchen. He doesn't say he can't spend more. He only asks: Is it worth it—economically, not ideologically, not ecologically—to pay the extra cost, say for KFW 55 or even 40? And he wants to know if it is better to build solid or prefabricated. And he says a simple house would be okay, they are not spoiled. I tried to give an answer to his questions, I think a factual answer. And then he gets an outrage wave thrown at him, from neverever through "better rent" through "impossible price" through "You have no choice anyway." And our house has to serve as the example "If you want that, you'll end up where he ended up." (Meanwhile, what we afforded in our settlement is so normal, and everyone builds here more or less at that level.) I want to make this clear: I am not saying: those who waste 500k in Wiesbaden are crazy. That may be the standard there, and it won't change. But please accept: it is different elsewhere. And yes, I stick to it: The KFW standards are incentives to insulate more, to use newer technology or even more expensive technology, they are linked to subsidies, but these subsidies have been more than eaten up by the builders through their surcharges, and therefore economically in my opinion make no sense. I am open to counterexamples. I can also say: Okay, I was wrong. That won't hurt my pride. Karsten